CDZ Is the Climate changing?

OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
423
Points
140
Location
Canada
If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.
Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.

Most people call this discussion Climate Change. I see no reason why I should confuse them by getting highly technical. I think it makes more sense to get into specifics once people are in the thread itself.

The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

I am attempting to avoid that and instead just focus on the scientific evidence.
You mean, lack thereof?

Nope, I mean what I said. However, it takes 2 to tango. If you'd rather just trade barbs, this conversation isn't going to go far.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
72,881
Reaction score
20,641
Points
2,180
If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.
Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.

Most people call this discussion Climate Change. I see no reason why I should confuse them by getting highly technical. I think it makes more sense to get into specifics once people are in the thread itself.

The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

I am attempting to avoid that and instead just focus on the scientific evidence.
You mean, lack thereof?

Nope, I mean what I said. However, it takes 2 to tango. If you'd rather just trade barbs, this conversation isn't going to go far.
Then it will be a short conversation. There is NO evidence man is causing climate change to happen faster.
If there is, show me.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
2,432
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
I am referring to the rain forest they discovered that was just a few hundred kilometers away from south pole.
A rainforest once grew near the South Pole | Science News for Students
[giggle]

"But ancient Antarctica wasn’t just warm. It was a forested."

Yes ... like I said ... Antarctica was located in the temperate latitudes 92 million years ago ... of course we'll find evidence of forests ... and this includes the seabed around Antarctica ... which moved with Antarctica to her current position centered on the South Pole ≈ 27 million years ago ...

"The team described its findings April 2 in Nature."

What the hell ... there doesn't appear to be an issue of Nature for April 2nd ... and there's no article in any issue of Nature concerning this according to their website {Cite "[Nature] Articles for 2021"} ...

I don't know where you found this information ... but you are responsible to check the citations ... and this citation is clearly bogus ... does not exist ...

That's not how we debate physics ...
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,424
Reaction score
21,948
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
There absolutely no doubt the climate is changing. It has been warming up since the end of the last ice age. The only respite we will get is with the periodic solar minimums that cases period of cooler weather. Also when we have volcanic eruptions than can cause a year or two of cooler weather.

Climate change is the norm for earth. Humans have experienced it before.

Humans have little or no impact on the climate contrary to what these stupid lying Environmental Wackos are trying to scam us with.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
72,881
Reaction score
20,641
Points
2,180
Antarctica was located in the temperate latitudes 92 million years ago
and show that a temperate lowland rainforest environment existed at a palaeolatitude of about 82° S
"The team described its findings April 2 in Nature."

What the hell ... there doesn't appear to be an issue of Nature for April 2nd ... and there's no article in any issue of Nature concerning this according to their website {Cite "[Nature] Articles for 2021"} ...

I don't know where you found this information ... but you are responsible to check the citations ... and this citation is clearly bogus ... does not exist ...

That's not how we debate physics ...
:rolleyes:
Did you even read it? It had a direct link to Nature.com
Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth | Nature
Nature.com had a direct link to the results
Klages, JP et al. (2019): Sedimentological, palynological, geochemical, palaeomagnetic, and geochronological investigations of cores 9R and 10R from MARUM-MeBo70 Site PS104_20-2 (pangaea.de)
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
72,881
Reaction score
20,641
Points
2,180
From my link :
Researchers thought this ancient, dinosaur-dominated era boasted CO2 levels about 2.5 times greater than our levels today. This simulation suggests levels were as much as four times the CO2 we currently have.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,051
Reaction score
2,432
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Antarctica was located in the temperate latitudes 92 million years ago
and show that a temperate lowland rainforest environment existed at a palaeolatitude of about 82° S
"The team described its findings April 2 in Nature."

What the hell ... there doesn't appear to be an issue of Nature for April 2nd ... and there's no article in any issue of Nature concerning this according to their website {Cite "[Nature] Articles for 2021"} ...

I don't know where you found this information ... but you are responsible to check the citations ... and this citation is clearly bogus ... does not exist ...

That's not how we debate physics ...
:rolleyes:
Did you even read it? It had a direct link to Nature.com
Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth | Nature
Nature.com had a direct link to the results
Klages, JP et al. (2019): Sedimentological, palynological, geochemical, palaeomagnetic, and geochronological investigations of cores 9R and 10R from MARUM-MeBo70 Site PS104_20-2 (pangaea.de)

No ... there's no link rendering on my computer from the "Science News for Students" article ... but thank you for the corrected date ... April 1st, 2020 ...

From the abstract of the Nature article:
"A climate model simulation shows that the reconstructed temperate climate at this high latitude ..."
[Emphasis mine]

As I said ... Antarctica had a temperate climate back then ... not a polar climate ...

It's fairly common to find forests 500 miles from a desert ... that's about as far as the Mojave is from Redwoods ... the Atacoma from the Amazon ... and today's temperatures are 15º to 20º cooler than 92 million years ago ...

[My mistake ... that should read 250 miles ... still true about Redwoods, but just ignore the comment about Amazonia ...]

It would also help if you explained why the divergence zone moved away from the pole ... where did it go? ...
 
Last edited:

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
1,071
Points
140
Three thoughts, 1. PEOPLE CONFUSE CLIMATE WITH WEATHER.
2. Have no expertise in climate science, so I stick with pollution.
3. NOT for Allowing water land and air to be polluted, to gain additional dollars for company's. By having restrictions removed that protect those resources. (and yes we do have some UNNESSARY restrictions, yet most are NEEDED to keep us safe.
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
24,253
Reaction score
9,352
Points
900
Location
The Real World
From my link :
Researchers thought this ancient, dinosaur-dominated era boasted CO2 levels about 2.5 times greater than our levels today. This simulation suggests levels were as much as four times the CO2 we currently have.

Then you have this jabbering shaved baboon John Kerry who we are supposed to believe is an Ivy League intellectual actually asserting that we need to get all CO2 OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

Could this goofy looking fuckstick possibly be that fuckin stupid? This is Hank Johnson capsized islands stupid. This is AOC never saw a garbage disposal stupid. How can you have have graduated 5th grade and not been educated well enough to know that in order for plants to grow, they need CO2?

So either John Kerry knows this MMGW thing is an utter bullshit hoax and is pandering to the dumbest fucks of all fucks in our society, or he is a window licking retard.

I mean this is a stunning level of pure stupidity. It's literally deadly. Dangerous to all life on earth.


.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
65
Reaction score
36
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
It is true that the climate has always been changing. It might change a degree or so every thousand years. The problem with manmade climate change is that it is happening quickly. Too quickly. If you will look at the southern border of the U.S., you will see refugees from Central American. They are coming to the border because climate change has brought catastrophic crop failure to their region. Other regions are also affected, generally the more warmer regions, and the colder. Temperate areas, not so much.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,805
Reaction score
2,220
Points
1,940
I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.
Not by people.It has been changing for 5 Billion years.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,703
Reaction score
5,747
Points
280
Location
Washington
I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.
Yes, the climate is changing and there's a ton of evidence to support the claim. Controversy is not about it changing but what if anything can be done given the huge impact of the needed changes on world economies and people's live. One can argue that doing nothing will have much greater impact in the long run. However, humans react to long term disasters, not by preventive measures and planning but rather adapting as disaster occur.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,647
Reaction score
6,341
Points
1,130
I don't think there is any study that proves the slight increase in temperature attributed to our burning of fossil fuel has changed or significantly altered global weather patterns.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
423
Points
140
Location
Canada
I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.
Yes, the climate is changing and there's a ton of evidence to support the claim. Controversy is not about it changing...

No controversy? Have you been reading this thread :p?
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,703
Reaction score
5,747
Points
280
Location
Washington
I don't think there is any study that proves the slight increase in temperature attributed to our burning of fossil fuel has changed or significantly altered global weather patterns.
The only scientific theories that can be proved are those that are supported by mathematical relationships such as Newton's law of universal gravitation or Archimedes principal of buoyancy which are referred to as scientific law.

While there is very strong evidence of climate change and man's contribution to it, there is no way to prove it. In fact, when it comes to science, there is little that can be proven. We depend on the opinions of academies of science and other respected scientific organizations for guidance. The vast majority of these organization have accepted the theory of climate change and man's contribution to it.

Unlike mathematics, what we believe in science is always subject to change and that's the way it should be. There should never be a point where scientific theory becomes written in stone. That said, there are scientific theories that have so much evidence to support them that they are accepted almost universally as fact such as the Theory of Germs, Cell Theory, Kinetic Theory of Gases, Theory of General Relativity, Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, etc.

We have not seen the strongest evidence of climate change yet. Some people think we should wait and see if the oceans rise and claim our largest cities, the southwest deserts become unlivable, and the American bread basket no longer exists. However, if we wait, there will certainly be those that do not except climate change regardless of evidence because of vested interest. We will do what is needed to adapt to this new world which will have little resemblance to today's world.
 
Last edited:

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,647
Reaction score
6,341
Points
1,130
I don't think there is any study that proves the slight increase in temperature attributed to our burning of fossil fuel has changed or significantly altered global weather patterns.
The only scientific theories that can be proved are those that are supported by mathematical relationships such as Newton's law of universal gravitation or Archimedes principal of buoyancy which are referred to as scientific law.

While there is very strong evidence of climate change and man's contribution to it, there is no way to prove it. In fact, when it comes to science, there is little that can be proven. We depend on the opinions of academies of science and other respected scientific organizations for guidance. The vast majority of these organization have accepted the theory of climate change and man's contribution to it.

Unlike mathematics, what we believe in science is always subject to change and that's the way it should be. There should never be a point where scientific theory becomes written in stone. That said, there are scientific theories that have so much evidence to support them that they are accepted almost universally as fact such as the Theory of Germs, Cell Theory, Kinetic Theory of Gases, Theory of General Relativity, Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, etc.

We have not seen the strongest evidence of climate change yet. Some people think we should wait and see if the oceans rise and claim our largest cities, the southwest deserts become unlivable, and the American bread basket no longer exists. However, if we wait, there will certainly be those that do not except climate change regardless of evidence because of vested interest. We will do what is needed to adapt to this new world which will have little resemblance to today's world.

Thanks for the cognizant response. While I agree that it is more likely than not, if the warming continues unabated, we may very well see some climate altering effects to the current weather patterns this century. The increase in temperature has not exceeded either of the warm periods of the Holocene Epoch and is still within the natural variation as far as weather patterns and weather events go. The rate of increase of course is much greater than in the past. The problem is most of us wont see the drastic effects predicted for the next century. However there is hope. Before, I would get pushback for suggesting even the slightest bit of warming has been caused by us burning fossil fuels. Now most people accept it somewhat.

Thanks again.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,703
Reaction score
5,747
Points
280
Location
Washington
I don't think there is any study that proves the slight increase in temperature attributed to our burning of fossil fuel has changed or significantly altered global weather patterns.
The only scientific theories that can be proved are those that are supported by mathematical relationships such as Newton's law of universal gravitation or Archimedes principal of buoyancy which are referred to as scientific law.

While there is very strong evidence of climate change and man's contribution to it, there is no way to prove it. In fact, when it comes to science, there is little that can be proven. We depend on the opinions of academies of science and other respected scientific organizations for guidance. The vast majority of these organization have accepted the theory of climate change and man's contribution to it.

Unlike mathematics, what we believe in science is always subject to change and that's the way it should be. There should never be a point where scientific theory becomes written in stone. That said, there are scientific theories that have so much evidence to support them that they are accepted almost universally as fact such as the Theory of Germs, Cell Theory, Kinetic Theory of Gases, Theory of General Relativity, Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, etc.

We have not seen the strongest evidence of climate change yet. Some people think we should wait and see if the oceans rise and claim our largest cities, the southwest deserts become unlivable, and the American bread basket no longer exists. However, if we wait, there will certainly be those that do not except climate change regardless of evidence because of vested interest. We will do what is needed to adapt to this new world which will have little resemblance to today's world.

Thanks for the cognizant response. While I agree that it is more likely than not, if the warming continues unabated, we may very well see some climate altering effects to the current weather patterns this century. The increase in temperature has not exceeded either of the warm periods of the Holocene Epoch and is still within the natural variation as far as weather patterns and weather events go. The rate of increase of course is much greater than in the past. The problem is most of us wont see the drastic effects predicted for the next century. However there is hope. Before, I would get pushback for suggesting even the slightest bit of warming has been caused by us burning fossil fuels. Now most people accept it somewhat.

Thanks again.
The fact that people know that the most devastating effects of climate change will not occur in their life, makes them very reluctant to make serious sacrifices. Humans are really great at responding to disasters because it' a sudden event in which devastation can be seen. Now spread that disaster over a couple hundred years, the human response will be to adapt, ignore, or just consider it part of the natural order.
I am not hopeful that any meaning progress toward preventing the results of global warning will occur until people see it as a disaster and that is not likely happen until it's too late. Over the next century as the heat rises, people will buy more air conditioners and move to cooler climates. As the ocean waters rise, we will build higher seawalls and move further inland. As farming area are abandon because climate change, the farms will move. As the coral reefs and their millions of inhabitants die over the coming centuries, few people will even notice.

And when people look back at the cattle ranches that were once the rainforest, luxury condominiums that use to be ski resorts, cities in desert areas that have gone underground, and the only habitats for large wild animals are zoos, they will ask the age old question, "why didn't somebody do something".
 
Last edited:

blackhawk

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
29,205
Reaction score
9,855
Points
900
Location
Deep in the heart of Texas.
The climate has been changing for thousands of years if not more the question is how much of a role do humans play and are these disaster movie predictions we hear about it realistic.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,703
Reaction score
5,747
Points
280
Location
Washington
The climate has been changing for thousands of years if not more the question is how much of a role do humans play and are these disaster movie predictions we hear about it realistic.
Global warming is not a disaster because it is not a sudden event. It occurs over decades and centuries. The results of global warming, seas rising, temperature increases, increases in violent weather, extinction of plant and animal life will also be a slow process. For example if seas rise an inch or so each decade, we will slowly increase the height of sea walls, and migrate away from shorelines. As temperatures in desert regions rise over the decades, people will migrate to cooler climates. In short, we will adapt, as earth slowly become less and less hospitable to humans. At some point, man will no longer be able to fuel global climate change and I suppose it will stop or possibly reverse.

If disasters did occur as pictured in movies and book, there would likely be a worldwide outcry for action that governments and industry could not ignore but that is not how climate change unfolds. It's a slow process that most people don't even notice, therefore it is easy to deny or ignore.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,424
Reaction score
21,948
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
It is true that the climate has always been changing. It might change a degree or so every thousand years. The problem with manmade climate change is that it is happening quickly. Too quickly. If you will look at the southern border of the U.S., you will see refugees from Central American. They are coming to the border because climate change has brought catastrophic crop failure to their region. Other regions are also affected, generally the more warmer regions, and the colder. Temperate areas, not so much.


You may be a little confused about this. They come to the US because we are a welfare state. We give them free stuff and they like it. Has nothing to do with the climate.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top